History will treat Hughton kindly

[GPs Beard 0]

This is a great discussion . Brienne is right.

 

Picking up on PC''s earlier post , the frustrations I feel watching from my lofty perch in the upper Barclay are summed up by PC''s points .

 

There is the counter-attack way, in which when the opposition attack breaks down in your half you then attack immediately, at pace, and probably in numbers. The advantage is that the attack has a good chance of success, because the opposition is badly out of shape. The disadvantage is that if you then lose the ball, you are badly out of shape.

As easy example of that comes from the Villa away game. We lost the ball in their penalty area. Four passes later Villa had five players in our penalty area and the ball was in the back of our net for the crucial third goal. But - the Hughton argument goes - that kind of cavalry-charge attack is too dangerous because if you don''t score and instead lose the ball with half your outfield in the opposition penalty area then you are at serious risk of conceding.

The second method is that when the opposition attack breaks down in your half you do not attack quickly, at pace and in numbers but as Parma said in his OP:

His methodology is to ensure that Norwich are hard to score against by tightening the spaces between and in front of the defenders. He is particularly concerned about conceding via transition turnovers and counter-attacks. Our slow, deliberate forward progress in possession is to ensure that we are less vulnerable to the counter thrusts of sides winning the ball from us as we make - or try to make - penetrative passes to score.

The obvious problem with that as a method is that it allows the opposition, if at all out of position, to regroup and be hard to penetrate, as Parma sorts of admits with that phrase about trying (as opposed to succeeding) to make penetrative passes. And there is a basic flaw in the idea that if we attack slowly then the opposition will get so frustrated it will come at us and lose shape that way. As I said before, if we were Barcleona and held on to the ball for minutes on end that might happen. But we are not, and it won''t. As you say:"

 

CH works on a structure where space is denied, narrow shape is maintained and the ball is moved slowly through the wide areas to bring the ball forward. 

 

This is as opposed to a quick Barcelona style "win the ball and move it forward" which is what the Tiki taka system expounds - and if you cannot score in 10 seconds you maintain possession , build again , and look to create the next opportunity to move the ball forward quickly , by players without the ball moving and making it easy to receive a pass.

 

In other words, we seem to have mixed up two styles that of the old pass the ball around the back until an opportunity arises (Catenaccio? ) , and the quick forward play, and ended up with the worst of both worlds!

 

The Villa example against us is a good one. Play turns over, players move forward , overload critical areas e.g. the penalty area. Ball movement is forward, passes are longer and quicker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

For me, the most pertinent point in Parma''s post, is that whilst being obsessed about being stretched ourselves (constantly worrying about the danger if you like -sure theres a song about that somewhere-), we fail to stretch the opposition ourselves. Surely it is this lack of stretching of the opposition that has resulted in our strikers not being able to score? We attack so slowly the opposition has time to regroup and is never pressured or panicked. By the time the ball reaches Hooper of RvW (if ever) any space they might run into, or that Wes or Fer might pass into has closed up, and indeed our striker is closed down. Also, as we have so few players commited to the attack, those which are are horribly outnumbered.

Ignorants will simply look at the number of goals scored by the strikers and conclude they are cr*p, and equally look at the table and conclude we are good. Neither statement is in fact true at all. The strikers dont score because they cant - and that is a product of the tactics. And one person is responsible for those tactics. So once again it all comes down to the manager. People can say that its the players that are out there and that they have to take the blame. if thats the case, why do we even hava managers at all? And why do players like Adebayor suddenly flourish when a new guy comes in?

[ron obvious 1,502]

Chemistry! How very dare you!

Physics all the way (of which chemistry is but a branch ...).

In isothermal expansion, the expanding gas is always in direct thermal contact, therefore at the same temperature as, its surroundings; your molecules (players) are travelling at the same speed & interacting fully with the surrounding ones (opposition).

Adiabatic expansion involves rapid expansion, too rapid for the surroundings to achieve thermal equilibrium, thus your molecules are moving faster & can move through surrounding ones without so much interaction (tackling).

In fact, because the container is finite (the pitch) the isothermal approach leads to the surroundings being compressed as our molecules expand (they pack the goalmouth).

How we ever score in that scenario is a bloody miracle.

Next week: how to derive Schroedingers Wave Equation in three dimensions & the impact of the resultant eigenfunctions on the probability of Ricky scoring before the end of the season .......

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Chemistry! How very dare you! Physics all the way (of which chemistry is but a branch ...). In isothermal expansion, the expanding gas is always in direct thermal contact, therefore at the same temperature as, its surroundings; your molecules (players) are travelling at the same speed & interacting fully with the surrounding ones (opposition). Adiabatic expansion involves rapid expansion, too rapid for the surroundings to achieve thermal equilibrium, thus your molecules are moving faster & can move through surrounding ones without so much interaction (tackling). In fact, because the container is finite (the pitch) the isothermal approach leads to the surroundings being compressed as our molecules expand (they pack the goalmouth). How we ever score in that scenario is a bloody miracle. Next week: how to derive Schroedingers Wave Equation in three dimensions & the impact of the resultant eigenfunctions on the probability of Ricky scoring before the end of the season .......[/quote]

 

So.......Houghton Out?

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Chemistry! How very dare you!

Physics all the way (of which chemistry is but a branch ...).

In isothermal expansion, the expanding gas is always in direct thermal contact, therefore at the same temperature as, its surroundings; your molecules (players) are travelling at the same speed & interacting fully with the surrounding ones (opposition).

Adiabatic expansion involves rapid expansion, too rapid for the surroundings to achieve thermal equilibrium, thus your molecules are moving faster & can move through surrounding ones without so much interaction (tackling).

In fact, because the container is finite (the pitch) the isothermal approach leads to the surroundings being compressed as our molecules expand (they pack the goalmouth).

How we ever score in that scenario is a bloody miracle.

Next week: how to derive Schroedingers Wave Equation in three dimensions & the impact of the resultant eigenfunctions on the probability of Ricky scoring before the end of the season .......[/quote]What do you expect? I said I was hazy on chemistry! But thanks for the explanation. I seem to remember having been in a few nightclubs that started out with isothermal expansion but soon switched to adiabatic...

[Nuff Said 5,141]

I think we''re all missing the important question here. Did you really type all that on an iPhone Parma Ham?!?

[KeelansGlove 0]

I think that Purple Canary outlined my view on page one far better than I could have done.

It clearly outlines what is wrong with our managers philosophy. You sir are a genius this thread should not be allowed to slide.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="GPB"]

 

If anyone can recall Norwich playing Total Football then I would suggest some

form of mind bending hallucinogenic. Love to imagine Big Dunc having a go on the

left wing. Mind you I wouldn''t have argued with him if he had wanted to.....

 

[/quote]

 

 

Funny that. I remember his first start against Villa he wore the No.11

shirt.... 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]I think that Purple Canary outlined my view on page one far better than I could have done.

It clearly outlines what is wrong with our managers philosophy. You sir are a genius this thread should not be allowed to slide.[/quote]

I wish that were true! Just someone with a reasonably analytical brain who has watched a bit of football. There is an idea that unless you have been involved in the game professionally you can''t have a sensible view of tactics and the like. The interesting thing about this debate is that has been sparked by an analysis of Hughton''s methods by someone who - based on what they have said - certainly has played/coached/managed professionally. So it is not just the idiot view of some amateur.For what it is worth I think Parma''s analysis of what Hughton has been trying to achieve this season is generally right. In very crude terms to win games 1-0. To make us very hard to score against, with the necessary corollary that we have forwards who will take a comparitively high percentage of the few chances they get every game.The point is that if that Parma''s professional analysis of the theory is accurate, then idiot amateurs such as myself can sensibly analyse the analysis as it is working in practice, because we have the hard evidence of results and statistics and the first-hand evidence right in front of watching the Hughton Method.And, as the key indicators show, it is not. That we are scoring significantly fewer than last season would be OK if we were conceding significantly fewer. But we are conceding more. And this really shouldn''t be a surprise. The kind of 1-0 strategy Hughton has apparently aimed for is achievable - with high-class players. Our squad is certainly not the poorest in the Premier League but neither is it cut out to implement Hughton''s Method. We don''t have an error-free defence and we don''t have at least one genius goalscorer.There is an argument in Hughton''s defence that his strategy, at the start of the season, was sensible, especially when contrasted with some alternatives, such as cavalry-charge football. But it should have become apparent long before now that the two flaws in it (as listed above) meant a change was needed. I don''t know whether, as Parma is now suggesting, that yesterday''s team selection meant Hughton had abandoned his Method. Some of the changes (Ryan Bennett and Hooper in) seemed sensible. But if yesterday was Hughton changing tactical horses at this very late stage then I doubt that went unnoticed by the directors.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="KeelansGlove"]I think that Purple Canary outlined my view on page one far better than I could have done. It clearly outlines what is wrong with our managers philosophy. You sir are a genius this thread should not be allowed to slide.[/quote]

I wish that were true! Just someone with a reasonably analytical brain who has watched a bit of football. There is an idea that unless you have been involved in the game professionally you can''t have a sensible view of tactics and the like. The interesting thing about this debate is that has been sparked by an analysis of Hughton''s methods by someone who - based on what they have said - certainly has played/coached/managed professionally. So it is not just the idiot view of some amateur.

For what it is worth I think Parma''s analysis of what Hughton has been trying to achieve this season is generally right. In very crude terms to win games 1-0. To make us very hard to score against, with the necessary corollary that we have forwards who will take a comparitively high percentage of the few chances they get every game.

The point is that if that Parma''s professional analysis of the theory is accurate, then idiot amateurs such as myself can sensibly analyse the analysis as it is working in practice, because we have the hard evidence of results and statistics and the first-hand evidence right in front of watching the Hughton Method.

And, as the key indicators show, it is not. That we are scoring significantly fewer than last season would be OK if we were conceding significantly fewer. But we are conceding more. And this really shouldn''t be a surprise. The kind of 1-0 strategy Hughton has apparently aimed for is achievable - with high-class players. Our squad is certainly not the poorest in the Premier League but neither is it cut out to implement Hughton''s Method. We don''t have an error-free defence and we don''t have at least one genius goalscorer.

There is an argument in Hughton''s defence that his strategy, at the start of the season, was sensible, especially when contrasted with some alternatives, such as cavalry-charge football. But it should have become apparent long before now that the two flaws in it (as listed above) meant a change was needed. I don''t know whether, as Parma is now suggesting, that yesterday''s team selection meant Hughton had abandoned his Method. Some of the changes (Ryan Bennett and Hooper in) seemed sensible. But if yesterday was Hughton changing tactical horses at this very late stage then I doubt that went unnoticed by the directors.

[/quote]

 

In fact, it was so "un-Hughton like", it may have been directed by the directors. McNally out! [:D]

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

Unpopular view at the time.

Parma

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Unpopular view at the time.

Parma[/quote]

Still an unpopular view now I should imagine. Farke''s football was bad last season, but I''m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a bit as we had a massive transition and lost an awful lot of players last year, including decent ones like Pritchard. If the football doesn''t improve by Christmas then I expect the crowd will be getting awfully agitated though, but even so we were still infintely better in an attacking sense than that last season under Hughton.

Hughton''s Norwich played worse football than we did under Farke last season. He went into every game hoping to scrape a 0-0 draw, put Tettey on for an attacking player when we were 3-0 down and generally could not have been any less inspiring.

We couldn''t score for toffee last season, yet still managed a goals total of 49. Hughton led us to a goals total of 28. Twenty eight goals. in an entire season. Shorter season in the Prem, but still works out to 1.06 per game for Farke, and 0.73 per game for Hughton. Hughton spent a club record 8 million pounds on a striker that couldn''t score, and then led us to our worst ever goals haul.

Hughton''s football was soul-destroying and genuinely endangered my love for football and NCFC. Farke''s football is frustrating as hell, but hasn''t dampened my enthusiasm in the same way.

[Bill 1,788]

".............have achieved the more prosaic and pragmatic miracle of repeated safety.

The odds are that Norwich will again (just) stay up this season. It

will likely be the case that Hughton will be replaced regardless"

We weren''t

and there was nothing ''repeated'' as we were relegated that season

with Hughton being sacked a few weeks after that post (OP)

[king canary 7,606]

Hughton being good at Brighton doesn''t retrospectively make his tenure here better.

[hogesar 9,673]

I agree with the thesis of your point Parma; I don''t think too many people were unaware of what Hughton was trying to achieve - we had seen it work the season before on a long unbeaten run. And none of us were complaining about the style of football during that run, either.

The problems begin when it isn''t working; the threshold is that much less in terms of fan patience when you''re at a home game yet your team is sitting back absorbing pressure for 80 minutes - barely even seeing the ball in some games. It wasn''t even like RvW or Hooper or Elmander were playing well enough that fans believed if we managed to create one chance we would take it.

And I think if you look back at some games such as Newcastle at home - literally nothing happened. It''s quite a bit different to 99% of home games under Farke this season where even if we didn''t score, we probably should have.

[king canary 7,606]

Also from a fans perspective it was the incredible lack of fight on display. When we conceded a goal it was basically game over. Such a tortuous football experience.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

I thought at the time Hughton was a good choice, especially for us then. And overall his track record is excellent. And I never had any problem with him prioritising defence.

However what that - under certain circumstances - segued into was a fatal passivity. When we went behind.

This is from memory but I correct, I think. In his second season we only came from behind to get a draw twice and a win once. And all at home. With the win against West Ham when after being pretty much outplayed their goalie helpfully dropped the ball and gave away a penalty.

Away from home not a sausage. It was became clear that when we went behind the instruction was not to press for an equaliser, but to in effect carry on playing in effect as if we were still level, and hope a goal would come. Which it never did. And you could see the players, as the season dragged on, knew this. Heads really did drop when we conceded.

Culminating in the crucial home game against WBA, when we conceded early and never really looked as if we would equalise.

And if Mick Dennis is to be believed (on this I certainly do) after that limp defeat the board asked Hughton if he intended to approach the last five games in the same passive fashion. Yes. Ok, here is your P45.

Of course there is no guarantee that we would have gained the few extra points we needed if we had been more attack-minded after going behind. But...

And this was not out of character from Hughton. When he took over next season at Brighton, who were in a relegation fight, but by no means doomed, he did the same, only more so. In about three dozen games not once did Brighton, home or away, come from behind to get even a draw. Not once (unless memory lapses).

Having kept Brighton up, he has been able to be less passive. But then Brighton have money we did not. This is very much from memory butI think their owner has put in getting close to 200 million.

And in their last two seasons they have lost about 65 million pounds. This is a guess but I suspect Norwich City''s total losses over more than 100 years would not reach 65million.

Hughton''s record at Brighton has been achieved under easier circumstances. And by not spending a record amount of money on a striker who would probably figure below Bryan Conlon in my ratings of Canary centre-forwards...

[Year of the tiger 54]

Re coming back from behind in an away match under Hughton. From Nov 28 2012 at Southampton when Snodgrass scored, we never managed another away equaliser in Hughton reign, not even to equalise & then go on to be beaten. In fact our next away equaliser was at Cardiff in September 2014.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I thought at the time Hughton was a good choice, especially for us then. And overall his track record is excellent. And I never had any problem with him prioritising defence. However what that - under certain circumstances - segued into was a fatal passivity. When we went behind. This is from memory but I correct, I think. In his second season we only came from behind to get a draw twice and a win once. And all at home. With the win against West Ham when after being pretty much outplayed their goalie helpfully dropped the ball and gave away a penalty. Away from home not a sausage. It was became clear that when we went behind the instruction was not to press for an equaliser, but to in effect carry on playing in effect as if we were still level, and hope a goal would come. Which it never did. And you could see the players, as the season dragged on, knew this. Heads really did drop when we conceded. Culminating in the crucial home game against WBA, when we conceded early and never really looked as if we would equalise. And if Mick Dennis is to be believed (on this I certainly do) after that limp defeat the board asked Hughton if he intended to approach the last five games in the same passive fashion. Yes. Ok, here is your P45. Of course there is no guarantee that we would have gained the few extra points we needed if we had been more attack-minded after going behind. But... And this was not out of character from Hughton. When he took over next season at Brighton, who were in a relegation fight, but by no means doomed, he did the same, only more so. In about three dozen games not once did Brighton, home or away, come from behind to get even a draw. Not once (unless memory lapses). Having kept Brighton up, he has been able to be less passive. But then Brighton have money we did not. This is very much from memory butI think their owner has put in getting close to 200 million. And in their last two seasons they have lost about 65 million pounds. This is a guess but I suspect Norwich City''s total losses over more than 100 years would not reach 65million. Hughton''s record at Brighton has been achieved under easier circumstances. And by not spending a record amount of money on a striker who would probably figure below Bryan Conlon in my ratings of Canary centre-forwards...[/quote]

 

This is how I remember the Hughton era, particularly in his second season.  I remember the 0-0 draw at Reading as the worst game of football I have ever seen - we sat back and aimed to get a draw, they had pretty much the same idea, neither side really wanted to commit players forward and any attacking opportunities were more by chance than anything else.

 

Even worse, despite this as time went on, we became less and less solid defensively.  And you could see the uncertainty in the players when they realised we couldn''t defend confidently but had no real attacking threat.  It''s not a recipe for success in any division.